SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Marmara Medical Journal / 2020 / Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 1

Difficulties in indicating appendectomy; diagnosis of appendicitis in patients with normal white blood cell count

Veli VURAL
Pages
35–38
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Pathology was normal in 8 out of 9 patients (89%) with a diameter of 8 mm and below; and 9 out of 89 patients (9%) with a diameter above 8 mm (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: Even after 130 years have passed since the first appendectomy, diagnosing acute appendicitis can still be challenging.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results: Of the 98 patients, 89 patients (91%) had an appendiceal diameter wider than 8 mm and 9 patients (9%) had an appendiceal diameter of 8 mm and smaller in the preoperative US.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Pathology was normal in 8 out of 9 patients (89%) with a diameter of 8 mm and below; and 9 out of 89 patients (9%) with a diameter above 8 mm (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Appendicitis · Diagnostic ultrasound · White blood cell count

Abstract

Objectives: Even after 130 years have passed since the first appendectomy, diagnosing acute appendicitis can still be challenging. The objective of this study was to investigate clinical, imaging and laboratory findings of patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis in order to determine whether white blood cell count is helpful in the diagnosis. Materials and Methods: Parameters of Alvarado score, patients’ complaints, physical examination and laboratory findings were recorded. Appendiceal diameters of patients detected with ultrasound (US) were also recorded. Results: Of the 98 patients, 89 patients (91%) had an appendiceal diameter wider than 8 mm and 9 patients (9%) had an appendiceal diameter of 8 mm and smaller in the preoperative US. Pathology was normal in 8 out of 9 patients (89%) with a diameter of 8 mm and below; and 9 out of 89 patients (9%) with a diameter above 8 mm (p

🔖

Cite This Article

VURAL, V. (2020). Difficulties in indicating appendectomy; diagnosis of appendicitis in patients with normal white blood cell count. Marmara Medical Journal, Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 1, 35–38. https://ajindex.com/articles/283836

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Seal A. Appendicitis: a historical review. Can J Surg 1981;24:427-33
  2. Andersson RE, Hugander A, Thulin AJ. Diagnostic accuracy and perforation rate in appendicitis: association with age and sex of the patient and with appendicectomy rate. Eur J Surg 1992;158:37-41
  3. Hale DA, Molloy M, Pearl RH, Schutt DC, Jaques DP. Appendectomy: a contemporary appraisal. Ann Surg 1997;225:52-61. doi: 10.1097/00000.658.19970300000003
  4. Cuschieri J, Florence M, Flum DR, et al. Negative appendectomy and imaging accuracy in the Washington state surgical care and outcomes assessment program. Ann Surg 2008;248:557-63. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318187aeca
  5. Wagner PL, Eachempati SR, Soe K, Pieracci FM, Shou J, Barie PS. Defining the current negative appendectomy rate: for whom is preoperative computed tomography making an impact? Surgery 2008;144:276-82. doi: 10.1016/j. surg.2008.03.040
  6. Poortman P, Oostvogel HJ, de Lange-de Klerk ES, Cuesta MA, Hamming JF. The use of imaging in the case of suspected acute appendicitis: opinion of Dutch surgeons. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2009;153:B376
  7. Alvarado A. A practical score for the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med 1986;15:557-64. doi: 10.1016/ S0196-0644(86)80993-3
  8. Owen TD, Williams H, Stiff G, Jenkinson LR, Rees BI. Evaluation of the Alvarado score in acute appendicitis. J R Soc Med 1992;85:87-8
  9. Douglas CD, Macpherson NE, Davidson PM, Gani JS. Randomised controlled trial of ultrasonography in diagnosis of acute appendicitis, incorporating the Alvarado score. BMJ 2000;321(7266):919-22. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7266.919
  10. Andersson RE. Meta-analysis of the clinical and laboratory diagnosis of appendicitis. Br J Surg 2004;91:28-37. doi: 10.1002/bjs.4464
  11. Andersson M, Andersson RE. The appendicitis inflammatory response score: a tool for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis that outperforms the Alvarado score. World J Surg 2008;32:1843-9. doi: 10.1007/s00268.008.9649-y
  12. Lahaye MJ, Lambregts DM, Mutsaers E, et al. Mandatory imaging cuts costs and reduces the rate of unnecessary surgeries in the diagnostic work-up of patients suspected of having appendicitis. Eur Radiol 2015;25:1464-70. doi: 10.1007/s00330.014.3531-0
  13. Raja AS, Wright C, Sodickson AD, et al. Negative appendectomy rate in the era of CT: an 18-year perspective. Radiology 2010;256:460-5. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10091570
  14. Willekens I, Peeters E, De Maeseneer M, de Mey J. The normal appendix on CT: does size matter? PL